This is a reflection of mine on Bernie Sanders. As some of you may know, I was a huge Ron Paul supporter back in 2012. In fact, my first account on this website was Ron-Paul. Looking at Sanders, him and Paul are actually rather similar. They both campaigned on anti-establishment platforms characterized by very socially liberal policies (at least in comparison to the other candidates within their party). They differed of course in their economic policies, Paul being a Tea-Party influenced libertarian and Sanders being a "Socialist". Nevertheless, they share more similarities than they do to any other candidate from either the 2012 or 2016 races.

Paul fans, including myself, were idealistic and naive. We thought that the Republican party would be much more amenable to that drastic of a change in just a few short years. In hindsight, there was no way that was ever even possible. Sanders has a lot more promise to him than Paul did. Paul ever only won one primary, and that was in the U.S. Virgin islands. Sanders has already won big states like Michigan and Minnesota. The momentum behind him seems to be much stronger now than the momentum behind Paul ever was.

However, he has a lot less steam than people think he does. He has not decisively won a single major state. The only states he has done so are (by "decisive" I mean won over 66% of the delegates) Vermont and Kansas, both small delegate states. By contrast, Clinton has decisively won basically every Southern state, including large ones like Georgia, Florida, and Texas. The other contests have mostly been Clinton wins, and everywhere they haven't been, she's lost by only a small number of delegates. The Midwest primaries are shaping up to be, at the extreme best, small Sanders victories, so these states will in no way counterbalance Clinton's Southern victories. The only major states left are Washington, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, California, and New Jersey. Maryland, given Virginia's strong Clinton vote, looks to be a major Clinton win. New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey are, given Massachusetts's basically split vote, look to be decisive for neither candidate. The only wild cards are Washington and California, and that is only because no West coast state has voted yet (the other being Oregon), and Sanders would basically have to win every single delegate in these states given my predictions to win the nomination, which is wildly unlikely. I could potentially see Sanders winning on the West Coast with their strong liberal leanings, but certainly nothing decisive like Sanders needs.

His supporters also make a number of questionable "pragmatic" arguments for nominating Sanders over Clinton. My personal favorite is the claim that Sanders would do better against Trump than Clinton would. Even if this were true, Clinton has been polling above Trump since the beginning of the electoral process, so this is irrelevant anyways. But polls like these are flawed for two reasons. One, given the nature of the hate people who support one candidate from one party seem to feel towards the other candidates within that same party, a lot of people may be voting for the candidate in the other party simply because they think they'd prefer that candidate over the one from their own party. But the other, more important one, is that general election polls conducted in March are meaningless towards predicting what the result will be in November.

The the only reason to support Sanders should be based on the content of their beliefs alone. And even there, I hesitate to support Sanders over Clinton. While I like Sanders as a person more than Clinton, Sanders is way too idealistic in his policies. He thinks that he is going to have the money to fund all the major policies he's planning on implementing, given the current tax structure that has doomed even some of Obama's more moderate policies. And he also thinks that he is going to be able to push all of his legislation through Congress. Even if the Democratic party wins both houses, the Democrats that are elected may be more establishment friendly than he is, and may not be amenable to Sanders's plans, and may block them. It seems very unlikely that he is going to face a friendly Congress if he is elected. I see myself as supporting Sanders's general idea more than Clinton's, I think Clinton is going to get much more good things done than Sanders is ever going to be able to do.

Overall, Sanders fans are optimistic. And they have a right to be. They are much more of a threat to Clinton than ever would have been expected just six months ago. But Sanders doesn't have the momentum he needs to secure the nomination given the way the primaries have gone so far. And, in my opinion, there's no reason to support Sanders, either for pragmatic or belief reasons, over Clinton.

I should note I have changed a lot since 2012. I am no longer either a libertarian or an idealist when it comes to politics. But I felt I had a rather reasonable perspective on which to analyze Sander's campaign given my Paul leanings in the past. I'm interested to see what your thoughts are on the matter.

We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"

I just don't know how Bernie's supporters rationalize some of his policies -- should we really have an individual tax rate that exceeds 50%? Should we really have a $15 minimum wage?

By the way, where do you lie politically then? Or are you still figuring that out?

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

However, he has a lot less steam than people think he does. He has not decisively won a single major state. The only states he has done so are (by "decisive" I mean won over 66% of the delegates) Vermont and Kansas, both small delegate states.

Didnt he also win New Hampshire by a mile?

I could potentially see Sanders winning on the West Coast with their strong liberal leanings, but certainly nothing decisive like Sanders needs.

He needed big wins today to make up ground against Clinton and not only did he lose, he lost by a LOT. I belive his campaign is as good as dead now

But polls like these are flawed for two reasons. One, given the nature of the hate people who support one candidate from one party seem to feel towards the other candidates within that same party, a lot of people may be voting for the candidate in the other party simply because they think they'd prefer that candidate over the one from their own party. But the other, more important one, is that general election polls conducted in March are meaningless towards predicting what the result will be in November.

They also dont reflect how many voters are truly undecided, which in a Trump vs Sanders matchup I imagine there would be a sh*tload of them.

The the only reason to support Sanders should be based on the content of their beliefs alone. And even there, I hesitate to support Sanders over Clinton. While I like Sanders as a person more than Clinton, Sanders is way too idealistic in his policies.

+1

He thinks that he is going to have the money to fund all the major policies he's planning on implementing, given the current tax structure that has doomed even some of Obama's more moderate policies.

+1

And he also thinks that he is going to be able to push all of his legislation through Congress. Even if the Democratic party wins both houses, the Democrats that are elected may be more establishment friendly than he is, and may not be amenable to Sanders's plans, and may block them.

+1, and thats even assuming Democrats win both houses, which they likely will not

It seems very unlikely that he is going to face a friendly Congress if he is elected. I see myself as supporting Sanders's general idea more than Clinton's, I think Clinton is going to get much more good things done than Sanders is ever going to be able to do.

I wouldnt go that far, since the GOP is as radically opposed to Clinton as they are Sanders. Any good things she does get done will have to be strictly from foreign policy affairs since thats the realm of the presidency that doesnt require Congressional input

Overall, Sanders fans are optimistic. And they have a right to be. They are much more of a threat to Clinton than ever would have been expected just six months ago. But Sanders doesn't have the momentum he needs to secure the nomination given the way the primaries have gone so far. And, in my opinion, there's no reason to support Sanders, either for pragmatic or belief reasons, over Clinton.

+1. All of my support for Clinton comes only from protest to Bernie's platform, and also lack of any other Democrats to support. (Biden)

I'm interested to see what your thoughts are on the matter.

I see a lot of similarities between Ron Paul and Bernie, namely that his rabid supporters online didnt show up at the polls when the time came, and always cried about media bias and media blackouts of their own candidate whenever they could.

My dislike for Bernie and Ron Paul came more from the conduct of his supporters online than any actual policy they put forward....

Internet Missing Person Alert: Angsty teen with daddy issues who is a failed horse rapist and also may be a cross-dresser. If spotted, please contact your local animal control or whatever disease-control organization is close by so they may return the species back to its garbage container habitat.

Internet Missing Person Alert: Angsty teen with daddy issues who is a failed horse rapist and also may be a cross-dresser. If spotted, please contact your local animal control or whatever disease-control organization is close by so they may return the species back to its garbage container habitat.

However, he has a lot less steam than people think he does. He has not decisively won a single major state. The only states he has done so are (by "decisive" I mean won over 66% of the delegates) Vermont and Kansas, both small delegate states.

Didnt he also win New Hampshire by a mile?

No, Clinton got 9 delegates and Sanders got 15 delegates, meaning he only got 62.5% of the delegates in New Hampshire.

I could potentially see Sanders winning on the West Coast with their strong liberal leanings, but certainly nothing decisive like Sanders needs.

He needed big wins today to make up ground against Clinton and not only did he lose, he lost by a LOT. I belive his campaign is as good as dead now

I'm not sure how long he's going to last though. His supporters are vocal enough that I could see him continuing until the Democratic convention basically has to say that they're nominating Clinton.

But polls like these are flawed for two reasons. One, given the nature of the hate people who support one candidate from one party seem to feel towards the other candidates within that same party, a lot of people may be voting for the candidate in the other party simply because they think they'd prefer that candidate over the one from their own party. But the other, more important one, is that general election polls conducted in March are meaningless towards predicting what the result will be in November.

They also dont reflect how many voters are truly undecided, which in a Trump vs Sanders matchup I imagine there would be a sh*tload of them.

A Trump vs. Sanders matchup, while basically impossible now, would be a lot of fun to see. Would there be low or high voter turnout? If the latter, would the undecideds stomach a reactionist flip-flopper or a socialist more? The polls now mean nothing.

It seems very unlikely that he is going to face a friendly Congress if he is elected. I see myself as supporting Sanders's general idea more than Clinton's, I think Clinton is going to get much more good things done than Sanders is ever going to be able to do.

I wouldnt go that far, since the GOP is as radically opposed to Clinton as they are Sanders. Any good things she does get done will have to be strictly from foreign policy affairs since thats the realm of the presidency that doesnt require Congressional input

The GOP seems to be radically opposed to anyone they think is not far right enough. I based that thought on Clinton's much greater political prowess and ability to get legislation passed through compromise and typical political blackmail than Sanders.

Overall, Sanders fans are optimistic. And they have a right to be. They are much more of a threat to Clinton than ever would have been expected just six months ago. But Sanders doesn't have the momentum he needs to secure the nomination given the way the primaries have gone so far. And, in my opinion, there's no reason to support Sanders, either for pragmatic or belief reasons, over Clinton.

+1. All of my support for Clinton comes only from protest to Bernie's platform, and also lack of any other Democrats to support. (Biden)

I'm with you here. I don't like Clinton one bit. But, compared to Sanders, she's better able to get good things done than Sanders is. I'd certainly support Biden over Clinton. Heck, I actually liked O'Malley more than Clinton. Oh the dearth of good candidates the Democrats like...

I'm interested to see what your thoughts are on the matter.

I see a lot of similarities between Ron Paul and Bernie, namely that his rabid supporters online didnt show up at the polls when the time came, and always cried about media bias and media blackouts of their own candidate whenever they could.

The Sanders subreddit is ridiculous. They're unswervingly optimstic and, while I think that what they're doing is helping Sanders, they seem to think it's doing more than it is. Sanders won 0 of the states yesterday, and they're already claiming victory because they reduced Clinton's earlier leads. They don't seem to realize Sanders can't win by merely cutting Clinton's leads. And every Caucus day, there's several threads about reporting voter fraud and stuff similar.

My dislike for Bernie and Ron Paul came more from the conduct of his supporters online than any actual policy they put forward....

Anti-establishment candidates always seem to have the loudest supporters (and, in Trump's case, detractors as well).

We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"

At 3/16/2016 5:42:02 AM, Contra wrote:I just don't know how Bernie's supporters rationalize some of his policies -- should we really have an individual tax rate that exceeds 50%? Should we really have a $15 minimum wage?

By the way, where do you lie politically then? Or are you still figuring that out?

I haven't completely figured it out, but I have leanings. I'm strongly socially liberal and a rough environmentalist, although I hesitate calling myself that, as there are a number of things I disagree with most environmentalists on (for example, I'm pro-nuclear and pro-GMO). The main areas I have strong conflictions in are economics and foreign policy.

We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"

I could potentially see Sanders winning on the West Coast with their strong liberal leanings, but certainly nothing decisive like Sanders needs.

He needed big wins today to make up ground against Clinton and not only did he lose, he lost by a LOT. I belive his campaign is as good as dead now

I'm not sure how long he's going to last though. His supporters are vocal enough that I could see him continuing until the Democratic convention basically has to say that they're nominating Clinton.

How long did Ron Paul stay in the race after Mitt won the nomination? Bernie may have a rabid fanbase, but he's not enough of a sellout/attention-whore to campaign for president all the way up to the convention and will probably drop out before then.

But polls like these are flawed for two reasons. One, given the nature of the hate people who support one candidate from one party seem to feel towards the other candidates within that same party, a lot of people may be voting for the candidate in the other party simply because they think they'd prefer that candidate over the one from their own party. But the other, more important one, is that general election polls conducted in March are meaningless towards predicting what the result will be in November.

They also dont reflect how many voters are truly undecided, which in a Trump vs Sanders matchup I imagine there would be a sh*tload of them.

A Trump vs. Sanders matchup, while basically impossible now, would be a lot of fun to see. Would there be low or high voter turnout? If the latter, would the undecideds stomach a reactionist flip-flopper or a socialist more? The polls now mean nothing.

The only people who think those polls do have meaning are rabid Bernie supporters since thats the only thing they have left to justify supporting Bernie

It seems very unlikely that he is going to face a friendly Congress if he is elected. I see myself as supporting Sanders's general idea more than Clinton's, I think Clinton is going to get much more good things done than Sanders is ever going to be able to do.

I wouldnt go that far, since the GOP is as radically opposed to Clinton as they are Sanders. Any good things she does get done will have to be strictly from foreign policy affairs since thats the realm of the presidency that doesnt require Congressional input

The GOP seems to be radically opposed to anyone they think is not far right enough. I based that thought on Clinton's much greater political prowess and ability to get legislation passed through compromise and typical political blackmail than Sanders.

Fair point. Clinton does seem like she is far easier to roll over than Sanders is when it comes to negotiating.

+1. All of my support for Clinton comes only from protest to Bernie's platform, and also lack of any other Democrats to support. (Biden)

I'm with you here. I don't like Clinton one bit. But, compared to Sanders, she's better able to get good things done than Sanders is. I'd certainly support Biden over Clinton. Heck, I actually liked O'Malley more than Clinton. Oh the dearth of good candidates the Democrats like...

O'Malley might have had a chance had Hillary not had a complete chokehold on name-brand recognition for politicians.... A good deal of her support comes from having the last name 'Clinton' im sure, and if her last name was anything else, O'Malley might have been able to stay in the race longer than Iowa.

I'm interested to see what your thoughts are on the matter.

I see a lot of similarities between Ron Paul and Bernie, namely that his rabid supporters online didnt show up at the polls when the time came, and always cried about media bias and media blackouts of their own candidate whenever they could.

The Sanders subreddit is ridiculous.

Omg you should have seen it when the votes were coming in.... Funniest sh*t I have ever seen XD

They're unswervingly optimstic and, while I think that what they're doing is helping Sanders, they seem to think it's doing more than it is. Sanders won 0 of the states yesterday, and they're already claiming victory because they reduced Clinton's earlier leads. They don't seem to realize Sanders can't win by merely cutting Clinton's leads. And every Caucus day, there's several threads about reporting voter fraud and stuff similar.

They remind me of Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theorists where whenever somethng doesnt go their way, its because some force intervened to stop them rather than admit that their candidate isnt perfect/sucks

My dislike for Bernie and Ron Paul came more from the conduct of his supporters online than any actual policy they put forward....

Anti-establishment candidates always seem to have the loudest supporters (and, in Trump's case, detractors as well).

Internet Missing Person Alert: Angsty teen with daddy issues who is a failed horse rapist and also may be a cross-dresser. If spotted, please contact your local animal control or whatever disease-control organization is close by so they may return the species back to its garbage container habitat.

I could potentially see Sanders winning on the West Coast with their strong liberal leanings, but certainly nothing decisive like Sanders needs.

He needed big wins today to make up ground against Clinton and not only did he lose, he lost by a LOT. I belive his campaign is as good as dead now

I'm not sure how long he's going to last though. His supporters are vocal enough that I could see him continuing until the Democratic convention basically has to say that they're nominating Clinton.

How long did Ron Paul stay in the race after Mitt won the nomination? Bernie may have a rabid fanbase, but he's not enough of a sellout/attention-whore to campaign for president all the way up to the convention and will probably drop out before then.

I actually did not know this, but Ron Paul never officially dropped out. Despite being third in delegate count, he was the only candidate present at the Republican National Convention besides Romney. And he actively campaigned in states even after their primaries had been held to try to win the nomination. This doesn't give me much hope for Bernie.

+1. All of my support for Clinton comes only from protest to Bernie's platform, and also lack of any other Democrats to support. (Biden)

I'm with you here. I don't like Clinton one bit. But, compared to Sanders, she's better able to get good things done than Sanders is. I'd certainly support Biden over Clinton. Heck, I actually liked O'Malley more than Clinton. Oh the dearth of good candidates the Democrats like...

O'Malley might have had a chance had Hillary not had a complete chokehold on name-brand recognition for politicians.... A good deal of her support comes from having the last name 'Clinton' im sure, and if her last name was anything else, O'Malley might have been able to stay in the race longer than Iowa.

That's certainly true, but it is worth noting that Jeb Bush's campaign never really got that far. She was also second behind Obama in 2008 and was Secretary of State during Obama's first term, while O'Malley only had the qualification of being the governor of Maryland.

They're unswervingly optimstic and, while I think that what they're doing is helping Sanders, they seem to think it's doing more than it is. Sanders won 0 of the states yesterday, and they're already claiming victory because they reduced Clinton's earlier leads. They don't seem to realize Sanders can't win by merely cutting Clinton's leads. And every Caucus day, there's several threads about reporting voter fraud and stuff similar.

They remind me of Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theorists where whenever somethng doesnt go their way, its because some force intervened to stop them rather than admit that their candidate isnt perfect/sucks

I can't remember the whole story, but I remember them making a royal fuss when Bill Clinton was stopped too close to some polling station in New Hampshire, like it was going to be the deciding factor in the primary.

We are not dead. We have never lived. - Varg Vikernes, "Det som en gang var"